Posted: Jun 08, 2014 12:07 am
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:It seems ADP, that the following pattern shows that materialists do not have even a hypothesis on origins, as demonstrated by these six irrefutable observations:
Irrefutable observations? Given how several of them are just straight up false I don't give much for what you think is "irrefutable".
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence
Yeah, the origin of species is an explanation for biodiversity, not life's ultimate origins.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars and with protostars
Bzzz. false. The first generation of stars formed after the big bang following big bang nucleosynthesis.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes
Yes, mostly.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of species by neo-Darwinism begins with existing complex reproducing life
Yes.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life
No it isn't. Straight up false.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.
What's with the "increasingly" bullshit? Can you even produce any actual data in support of your claimed trends here?
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:This pattern demonstrates that many in the public
What pattern? You have not established a pattern, you have merely asserted it.
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:, following a gullible media, have undue confidence in the claims about origins from materialists.
Who? What claims specifically? What media? Who are these "public" people with undue confidence?
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Consider also originating the process to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule? Atheists have nothing and we can affirmatively know that they will forever have nothing in that regard
Really?
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:because a high-level understanding of physics and information affirmatively demonstrates that the laws of physics do not include symbolic logic functions.
What the fuck do you think happens inside your computer? Ever heard about a logic gate? You think a ghost sits inside your CPU?
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Information is not physical, and hence, strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems.
Diametrically opposite to demonstrable fact. All physical systems by definition convey information.